@Jack -- Nice move into the open field!
@John -- I actually have always appreciated your ascetic esthetic about your tools. I'm not much an early adopter, myself, but I got my current job off of LinkedIn, so I have a warm feeling for the old joint!
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:07 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Doug, Ferenc, Pavithra, and Jack,
DMcD> Thanks for this statement, John. It helps amplify the point I
> made on the Enterprise Architecture forum on LinkedIn...
I'm glad that it helps.
(But by the way, your point shows why I don't use LinkedIn. Ontolog
Forum is open to everybody, and it is indexed by all the search
engines. LinkedIn blocks open sharing. I don't like that.)
DMcD> Instead of efforts to nail down the one true meaning of some term,
> I believe it is more helpful to open up proliferations of meaning-I strongly agree.
> capture for more complete understandings of the domains being
> subjected to various well-meaning interventions.
FK> the inheritance of a property is obvious, nothing to write home about.
I agree. But that is true of all rules of inference in logic:
modus ponens; substituting a value for a universally quantified
variable; or noting that A&B is equivalent to B&A.
The repeated combination of a lot operations that are trivial
and obvious can sometimes add up to something significant.
But I admit that they might not be significant. For example,
On Selecting a Thesis Topic
By Henry Kautz
If your thesis is utterly vacuous,
Use first-order predicate calculus.
With sufficient formality
The sheerest banality
Will be hailed by all as miraculous.
If your thesis is quite indefensible,
Reach for semantics intensional.
Over Montague grammar
Your committee will stammer
Not admitting it's incomprehensible.
PK> When there is a one to one relationship between things, and such
> terms are used in an interchangeable way, it does not cause any
> design problem with accuracy .. but need semantic explanation.I agree. But terms that are subtly different may be interchangeable
in one application, but not in another. For example, consider a baby
at one point in time and the "same" individual 20 years later.
JR> Could it be that we have not included context-based 'nyms' in our
> ontologies because of the difficulties encountered in processingDifferent algorithms and reasoning methods can address many of
> them with von Neumann computers? Will the advent of massively
> parallel processors that can mesh nets efficiently open ontology
> design thinking and practice?
these issues. I'll admit that parallel hardware can open up
new methods that were impractical with older technology. But
a lot can be done with better ways of using current hardware.
Second Life: Doug McDavid
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)